At a council briefing, planning and sustainability acting director Mark Dickson said councillors in May, 2012, resolved not to include a liquor store and hairdresser and not to revise the definition of growers mart and showroom.
He said in October, 2012, the WA Planning Commission supported the City’s decision.
The Drovers Market Place landowner appealed against the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) and in May, 2013, the appeal was won.
‘Council did not support the hairdresser or liquor store at Drovers because they are typical activity centre uses that will contribute toward activating local centres,’ Mr Dickson said.
‘SAT decided that a large- format hairdresser (minimum 150sq m) and a large-format liquor store (minimum 1250sq m) are acceptable and appropriate land uses in the Drovers Centre.
‘SAT has defined the minimum floor space for the hairdresser and liquor store to distinguish them from other traditional forms of activity centre land uses and determined they are adequately different to be considered niche and therefore can be located at Drovers.
‘Administration considers Council has no basis to challenge SAT on this matter and as we attested, it was likely that SAT would not support Council’s refusal.’
He also recommended public advertising of the modifications be waived as there had been previous consultation from November 2011 to January 2012.
Mr Dickson recommended councillors accept the modifications to amend Local Structure Plan 80 in line with the tribunal.
‘It is (City) administration’s view that SAT has considered and determined against the main reasons behind council’s original decision to exclude those uses at Drovers,’ he said.
Cr Brett Treby foreshadowed an amendment and said it should go out for public comment.
‘Council clearly had a position on the hairdresser and the liquor store and I think if that is going to change, the broader community should be aware and they should be given every opportunity to know what’s going on,’ he said.
Cr Laura Gray asked what would happen if councillors did not support the modifications. Mr Dickson said the applicant could again appeal to the tribunal.
‘Having looked at the issues and reasons why Council previously refused those land uses at Drovers, I think the SAT decision has addressed those matters and therefore I don’t think SAT would take kindly to Council not considering their determination on the matter,’ he said.
At the council meeting the following week, the item was withdrawn.
Mr Dickson said administration was seeking legal advice on issues raised by the applicant’s lawyers.